Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 Mark Rabiner wrote, in part: >>>>...I think a sharp foreground is more important than a sharp background although a sharp background is usually pretty easy to get. I think your eye goes to the bottom of a picture after seeing the main subject. A soft background we can forgive easier than a soft foreground. Textures are bigger and right in front of you in the forground....<<< Perhaps it depends on the type of shot and composition. The relative importance of the objects to the composition may be one factor. Frankly, I like everything perfectly sharp most of the time. Consistent with your views, I must say that on my favorite foreground-to-background sweepers, where a sharp foreground was critical, it took a lot more work to get the foregrounds to look right than it did to get good background sharpness. [Of course, I blamed my old Distagon's close up performance for the problems -- not my technique. :-) ] These days, I take more than one shot if there is any question that the main objects of the composition will be sharp. (Thank you, Photoshop.) Paul Roark http://www.silcom.com/~proark/photos.html